Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
Author Message
panite Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,061
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-22-2012 04:55 PM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  
(02-22-2012 03:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(02-22-2012 02:58 PM)cttu Wrote:  i don't see how temple and nova could share the linc, too many games for one stadium. i just dont think the eagles would be okay with it

That is a good counter point but Philadelphia is a massive football town. With Big East games happening during the week the grounds crew could maintain. If the increased cost of grounds keeping doesn't outweight the increase of funds coming in for the linc then do the Eagles even have a say in it?

Philadelphia is a massive PRO football town. Nobody cares about college.

Temple averaged 28,000 last year. Nova averaged 8,780.

Besides, Temple has an exclusive on the Linc until 2017 (they put up $15 million towards construction in exchange for a 15 year lease).

If the Eagles don't want their grass field torn up 12 times a year, it won't happen.

Yes Philly FB belongs to the Eagles.

Temple only averaged 28k last year because Penn St played them at the Linc. When Penn St doesn't play there they only average 20k and they need Navy, Delaware, and the Mayors Cup with Nova to get that number in attendance when Penn doesn't play in Philly.

Temple did not contribute a cent toward building the Linc. The Eagles, the city, and the state built the Linc. Temple pays a million a year to play there under the current 15 year contract. That money goes straight to Laurie's chump change pocket for incidental living expenses.

8 home Eagle games, 7 home Temple games, and one December Army / Navy game is all the Linc grass field can tolerate and is all that Laurie will allow.

04-jawdrop 02-13-banana 03-melodramatic 05-stirthepot 04-cheers
02-22-2012 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 6,032
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 237
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #22
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
That's an interesting conclusion. It may be possible. I am not opposed to Nova moving up but not in lieu of another more qualified team.
02-22-2012 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KevinSmith Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 79
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Sanity
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
My guess is that enough BE BB-Catholic schools who would benefit from cheaper travel costs by adding Temple (Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall and Georgetown) combined with the real threat to the conference as a whole of not having 8 full members for 2012 made Villanova's no-Temple voting block dissolve and that is that.

If 13 current members are voting (all but departing members Pitt, SU and WVU) and you need 75% approval (10 of 13) Villanova needs 3 other anti-Temple votes to block that addition, so the East Coast Catholics likely bailed on them. My guess is ND would be an abstention and DePaul and Marquette would hang with Nova as it doesn't really help or hurt them, leaving it a clean 10-3 vote and Temple is in.

What will be interesting to watch, however, is Temple transitition. I mean they just started having winning seasons 3 years ago, did not manage to beat a MAC team with a winning record nor win the MAC East and they won their first bowl in 30+ years against a WAC remnant team. Now will there fanbase that has to be ecstatic today be so ecstatic if the next 3 year are 4-8, 5-7 and 6-6?
02-22-2012 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeXtreme Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Syracuse, NY
Post: #24
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-22-2012 05:48 PM)panite Wrote:  Temple did not contribute a cent toward building the Linc. The Eagles, the city, and the state built the Linc. Temple pays a million a year to play there under the current 15 year contract. That money goes straight to Laurie's chump change pocket for incidental living expenses.

http://www.billhance.com/football/Linc/LincMainPage.htm

$15 million paid by Temple University for 15 year contract, in 1 lump sum plus 4 annual payments
The deal was arranged by Gov. Rendell and House Speaker Perzel
The Eagles wanted the entire $15 million up front; Temple wanted to pay $3 million per year for 5 years
(This post was last modified: 02-22-2012 10:41 PM by OrangeXtreme.)
02-22-2012 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersMike Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 179
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
You can have three teams share the same facility. I believe it was the Rutgers 1993 season when we had to play all of our games at Giants Stadium when Rutgers Stadium was being rebuilt. It can be done but it will be a scheduling nightmare.
02-23-2012 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,509
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 280
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
I think it would be a LOT easier if it's 2 college teams sharing and then a pro team.

2 college 1 pro- 10 pro games plus 10 college games- 20 total
2 pro 1 college- 19 pro games(assuming teams play each other preseason) plus 6 college games- 25 total
02-23-2012 12:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cttu Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 107
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-23-2012 12:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it would be a LOT easier if it's 2 college teams sharing and then a pro team.

2 college 1 pro- 10 pro games plus 10 college games- 20 total
2 pro 1 college- 19 pro games(assuming teams play each other preseason) plus 6 college games- 25 total

i guess in this hypothetical it would probably be 9 college games because of the tu nova game?
02-23-2012 12:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,509
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 280
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-23-2012 12:56 AM)cttu Wrote:  
(02-23-2012 12:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it would be a LOT easier if it's 2 college teams sharing and then a pro team.

2 college 1 pro- 10 pro games plus 10 college games- 20 total
2 pro 1 college- 19 pro games(assuming teams play each other preseason) plus 6 college games- 25 total

i guess in this hypothetical it would probably be 9 college games because of the tu nova game?

I was thinking both would have 5 home games on a typical season... Villanova may play their other games at PPL park....
02-23-2012 01:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,362
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-23-2012 12:14 AM)RutgersMike Wrote:  You can have three teams share the same facility. I believe it was the Rutgers 1993 season when we had to play all of our games at Giants Stadium when Rutgers Stadium was being rebuilt. It can be done but it will be a scheduling nightmare.

Giants Stadium was turf. I'm pretty sure that the Linc is grass. That is a lot of abuse for a grass field.

From a story in the Times-Herald, it seems that Nova did not cut a deal.
http://www.timesherald.com/article/20120.../120229845
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2012 09:08 AM by mikeinsec127.)
02-23-2012 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,745
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #30
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Poor Villanova!

All that those poor, poor Wildcats (and by "poor" I mean very affluent) ever did was to repeatedly black-ball Temple for decades. They were merely looking after their own interests you see and it's not their fault of concern that their actions have irreparably harmed the Owls' athletic program.

While Villanova was cashing all of those big fat checks from ESPN for all those years for the rights to their games versus Georgetown, Syracuse and Connecticut, Temple was banished to the A-10 and was forced to slum it against teams like Fordham, St. Bonaventure and Duquesne.

Now that the Big East has run out of realistic options - save for ECU who has been continually hosed throughout this process, IMHO - the league had no choice but to turn to Temple. I mean the Big East literally looked almost everywhere else first.

Just think about this for a second. A league that calls itself "The Big East" added teams from California, Idaho, Tennessee and not one but TWO teams from Texas before adding the largest school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for christ's sake!

And we're supposed to feel badly for Villanova because it may adversely impact that school's recruiting and ticket sales?

Gimme a freaking break!

If I was a Temple fan and read this I would be breathing fire right now. Hell, I could care less about Temple and I'm still annoyed with this piece because it is a PERFECT illustration of the shameless sense of entitlement that Villanova has ALWAYS had and it is sickening.

Having said all of that, as a Pitt fan I would like to take this opportunity to thank Villanova for their brazen selfishness because I am absolutely convinced that it was the Wildcats' half-arse plan to play in that 18K seat soccer stadium - and the Big East brass' inexplicable support of that moronic plan - that finally convinced the notoriously slow on the uptake Pitt administration to look around for better opportunities which we ultimately found (thank you, Jesus).

And the worst part of this whole deal is I think Villanova's fears are completely unfounded. I believe that adding a legitimate rival to their slate will actually help in areas like recruitment and attendance because their hatred for each other will garner attention in a market where college athletics are often ignored. I said the same thing about USF when they were blocking UCF's admittance into the Big East. That rivalry will prove to be the very best thing that happened to the Bulls, not the worst. The same is true of Villanova and Temple.

Now, does it help the rest of the Big East? I'm not so sure. I think the jury will remain out on that issue for some time. However that pure hatred for each other will DEFINITELY increase Philadelphia's interest in the Big East in general and that will trickle down to both of the market's Big East universities.

Also, I now believe that it at least makes some sense for VU to upgrade to FBS football whereas before it made no sense whatsoever. Instead of focusing on Lincoln Financial Field - which neither program will never, ever fill - perhaps the schools would each be better served pooling their resources together to upgrade PPL Park to somewhere between 30-40K seats. On the rare occasion when a Notre Dame or a Penn State comes to town, simply play that game at the Linc. However when it is the far more common occurance like a game versus Memphis, UConn or UCF, play it in the more intimate facility. That will create a better atmosphere for fans at the game, it will look better on television and it will be attractive to recruits. That is what I would do if I were those two schools. But it has to be at least 30-40K seats. It can't be 18-19K seats like it is now as that is simply too small a venue for a league that wants to be considred a part of big time college football. That is big time for FCS football, but it does not pass the threshold of big time FBS football.

[Image: union-stadium.jpeg]
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2012 10:27 AM by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer.)
02-23-2012 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 243
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #31
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-23-2012 10:00 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Poor Villanova!

The poor affluent Wildcats black-balled Temple for decades and have irreparably harmed the Owls' athletic program. While Villanova was cashing all of those big fat checks from ESPN for all those years for the rights to their games versus Georgetown, Syracuse and Connecticut, Temple was banished to the A-10 and was forced to slum it against teams like Fordham, St. Bonaventure and Duquesne.

Now that the Big East has run out of realistic options - save for ECU who has been continually hosed throughout this process, IMHO - the league had no choice but to turn to Temple. I mean the Big East literally looked almost everywhere else first.

Just think about this for a second. A league that calls itself "The Big East" added teams from Boise, Idaho, Dallas, Texas and San Diego, California BEFORE adding the largest school in Philadelphia, Pennsyvania for christ's sake!

And we're supposed to feel badly for Villanova because it may adversely impact that school's recruiting and ticket sales?

Gimme a freaking break!

If I was a Temple fan and read this I would be breathing fire right now. It is a PERFECT illustration of the shameless sense of entitlement that Villanova has ALWAYS had and it is sickening.

Having said all of that, as a Pitt fan I would like to take this opportunity to thank Villanova for their brazen selfishness because I am absolutely convinced that it was the Wildcats' half-arse plan to play in that 18K seat soccer stadium - and the Big East brass' inexplicable support of that moronic plan - that finally convinced the notoriously slow on the uptake Pitt administration to look around for better opportunities which we ultimately found (thank you, Jesus).

And the worst part of this whole deal is I think Villanova's fears are completely unfounded. I believe that adding a legitimate rival to their slate will actually help in areas like recruitment and attendance because their hatred for each other will garner attention in a market where college athletics are often ignored. I said the same thing about USF when they were blocking UCF's admittance into the Big East. That rivalry will prove to be the very best thing that happened to the Bulls, not the worst. The same is true of Villanova and Temple.

Now, does it help the rest of the Big East? I'm not so sure. I think the jury will remain out on that issue for some time. However that pure hatred for each other will DEFINITELY increase Philadelphia's interest in the Big East in general and that will trickle down to both of the market's Big East universities. Also, I now believe that it at least makes some sense for VU to upgrade to FBS football whereas before it made no sense whatsoever.

Please, once again here's a sPitt fan with another rewritten version of history. Well I have one for you. I believe sPitt was in talks with the ACC while leading the charge to turn down the ESPN offer then use that as an excuse to leave.

Oh and didn't sPitt vote to kick Temple out 8-9 years ago?
02-23-2012 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,745
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #32
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
Sorry, you lost me with the immature nickname bit. Please try again later and with more respect next time. If you want to talk we can certainly talk but I don't do immature bullschit like that as it serves no constructive purpose. If you come back with more nonsense then I will not respond as it serves me no purpose.

BTW, for the record, the Big East's own records show that Pitt abstained from the Temple vote so to answer what I presume to have been a rhetorical, if uninformed, question, no, Pitt did not vote to oust Temple from the Big East. I'm sure that the Pitt brass was in favor of TU's ouster - I know I was - but there is no way that politically Pitt's leadership could have gotten away with voting against the interests of one of their in-state public university brothers. That would have never happened.

That said, Pitt didn't exactly go out of its way to champion Temple's cause either so that right there probably tells you all you need to know about where Pitt actually stood on the issue. However in fairness to Pitt, Temple didn't champion its own interests so why should Pitt or anyone else?

However privatized Villanova - which could not have possibly cared less about political considerations as they related to Temple - ACTIVELY campaigned and conspired against the Owls for years and that is a LOT different than letting a suicidal man carry out his wish.

You have to understand that at that time Temple was crazy and ambivalent towards its athletic program and it was wildly irresponsible with the money that it was getting from the Big East. They literally put NOTHING back into their football program despite repeated warnings from the Big East that if they didn't change that ppractice they would be banished from the league. I mean they didn't even know for sure that they were going to be allowed to play in the Linc until about a month before the stadium opened. That is sheer Looney Tunes!

So mine is not an attempt to place all of the blame for Temple's woes on Villanova. Plenty of people are to blame for Temple's conference issues and most of the fault lies at the feet of Temple itself. I just think that the only school that actively conspired against Temple throughout the process was Villanova and I think that was selfish on their part. I think they saw what Rutgers' admission into the Big East did to marginalize Seton Hall and they were worried that the same thing would happen to them if the Big East ever admitted Temple into its league. I just don't happen to agree with either their methods or their conclusion.
02-23-2012 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 243
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #33
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-23-2012 10:49 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Sorry, you lost me with the immature nickname bit. Please try again later and with more respect next time. If you want to talk we can certainly talk but I don't do immature bullschit like that as it serves no constructive purpose. If you come back with more nonsense then I will not respond as it serves me no purpose.

BTW, for the record, the Big East's own records show that Pitt abstained from the Temple vote so to answer what I presume to have been a rhetorical, if uninformed, question, no, Pitt did not vote to oust Temple from the Big East. I'm sure that the Pitt brass was in favor of TU's ouster - I know I was - but there is no way that politically Pitt's leadership could have gotten away with voting against the interests of one of their in-state public university brothers. That would have never happened.

That said, Pitt didn't exactly go out of its way to champion Temple's cause either so that right there probably tells you all you need to know about where Pitt actually stood on the issue. However in fairness to Pitt, Temple didn't champion its own interests so why should Pitt or anyone else?

However privatized Villanova - which could not have possibly cared less about political considerations as they related to Temple - ACTIVELY campaigned and conspired against the Owls for years and that is a LOT different than letting a suicidal man carry out his wish.

You have to understand that at that time Temple was crazy and ambivalent towards its athletic program and it was wildly irresponsible with the money that it was getting from the Big East. They literally put NOTHING back into their football program despite repeated warnings from the Big East that if they didn't change that ppractice they would be banished from the league. I mean they didn't even know for sure that they were going to be allowed to play in the Linc until about a month before the stadium opened. That is sheer Looney Tunes!

So mine is not an attempt to place all of the blame for Temple's woes on Villanova. Plenty of people are to blame for Temple's conference issues and most of the fault lies at the feet of Temple itself. I just think that the only school that actively conspired against Temple throughout the process was Villanova and I think that was selfish on their part. I think they saw what Rutgers' admission into the Big East did to marginalize Seton Hall and they were worried that the same thing would happen to them if the Big East ever admitted Temple into its league. I just don't happen to agree with either their methods or their conclusion.

Grow a thicker skin then pal.
02-23-2012 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,745
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #34
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
One more thing...

Why would Pitt need an excuse to leave the Big East? Your entire premise makes no sense whatsoever.

No matter what type of a contract the Big East would have signed, it would not have magically transformed that league into a healthier all-around league than the ACC or any other BCS league. That is why Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech left years earlier and it is also why EVERY SINGLE Big East school would have done exactly what Pitt and Syracuse ultimately did do (once again, thank you, Baby Jesus for delivering us from this unmitigated disaster).

If for some insane reason Pitt and Syracuse had turned down the ACC, do you honestly believe that some combination of Rutgers, Connecticut, West Virginia or South Florida wouldn't have happily taken our place in a New York second?

Puh-lease! That is flat out naive.

The Big East was in an amazingly fortuitous position of coming up for bid at a time when - thanks largely to the advent of the DVR and mobile devices and how they have dramatically impacted our viewing habits - EVERYBODY in the broadcasting industry was looking to get into the college athletics game including, most notably, content starved and wealthy NBC/Comcast. However that was always going to be a short-lived spike and it in no way changed the long term value of the Big East relative to its competition. A lot of people delude themselves into believing otherwise but those are just idle fantasies from what are generally highly biased fantacizers.

That is a very common issue in college athletics. The latest example of that phenomenon is that somehow the most attractive ACC schools + Notre Dame, Manchester United and the New England Patriots are all on the verge of defecting to the B12. It's all obviously complete nonsense but it gets people through the night so good for them. However just because a number of people assert it as fact and pray for it to happen, that doesn't necessarily make it true or realistic. In fact it is almost always untrue and unrealistic.

In retrospect, it certainly looks like it was indeed a mistake for the Big East to turn down ESPN's initial offer. However until the Big East signs its next media rights deal, nobody will know for sure the answer to that question.

Also, Pitt obviously played a large role in the league's decision to turn down the ESPN offer so I absolutely understand why some folks' arses would be chapped over how things worked out. However, if you think about it, I think Pitt's actions proves the exact opposite of what you are alleging. They almost certainly had absolutely no idea what was about to happen.

If the Panther "braintrust" (and I put that in sarcastic quotes because I happen to know at least some of the rocket scientists involved) knew that accepting a television contract that they believed to be undervalued and that adding a 1-AA school with no real plan to play at the game's higest level wasn't going to negatively impact them in the long term, because they were going to the ACC, then why on Earth would they make such a public display of dismay over the ESPN contract and Villanova's proposed admission in football? Why not just keep their mouths shut and go along with it and then use THAT as its excuse to leave the Big East?

Also, why did Pitt have such a prominent voice in those discussions in the first place?

Your whole premise is flawed.

You are frustrated and angry with how things worked out and you are looking for someone or something at which you can point your finger as THE source for all of your frustration and that's understandable. However it never is one incident or one person or even one school that creates a quagmire like this. Rather it is almost ALWAYS far more complex than that. However if you are looking to blame the group most responsible for the demise/restructuring (depending on your perspective) of the Big East, I would suggest that you would probably be best served look towards Providence to your north rather than westward towards Pittsburgh or Syracuse. The folks in Providence have had the most say in the direction of the league and therefore they should shoulder most of the blame/credit (depending on your perspective) for where the league currently stands.

Either way, I'm as pleased as punch to FINALLY be freed from that bear trap of a conference and I wish all of you nothing but the very best going forward. I sincerley mean that. I have loved Pitt's time in the Big East - particularly during men's basketball season - and I will continue to at least loosely follow it going forward.

Personally I think you are all insane to not schism and start anew as separate, more focused leagues - one stictly on men's and women's basketball and the other as a football first league that also places a priority on men's and women's basketball. However I must also say that thankfully that is no longer my cross to bare.
02-23-2012 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,745
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #35
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-23-2012 11:03 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Grow a thicker skin then pal.

Yeah, good point. Meow.
02-23-2012 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joe4psu Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Penn State
Location: Hawk Run, PA
Post: #36
RE: Did Villanova agree to Temple in BE in return for..
(02-22-2012 05:48 PM)panite Wrote:  
(02-22-2012 04:55 PM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  
(02-22-2012 03:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(02-22-2012 02:58 PM)cttu Wrote:  i don't see how temple and nova could share the linc, too many games for one stadium. i just dont think the eagles would be okay with it

That is a good counter point but Philadelphia is a massive football town. With Big East games happening during the week the grounds crew could maintain. If the increased cost of grounds keeping doesn't outweight the increase of funds coming in for the linc then do the Eagles even have a say in it?

Philadelphia is a massive PRO football town. Nobody cares about college.

Temple averaged 28,000 last year. Nova averaged 8,780.

Besides, Temple has an exclusive on the Linc until 2017 (they put up $15 million towards construction in exchange for a 15 year lease).

If the Eagles don't want their grass field torn up 12 times a year, it won't happen.

Yes Philly FB belongs to the Eagles.

Temple only averaged 28k last year because Penn St played them at the Linc. When Penn St doesn't play there they only average 20k and they need Navy, Delaware, and the Mayors Cup with Nova to get that number in attendance when Penn doesn't play in Philly.

Temple did not contribute a cent toward building the Linc. The Eagles, the city, and the state built the Linc. Temple pays a million a year to play there under the current 15 year contract. That money goes straight to Laurie's chump change pocket for incidental living expenses.

8 home Eagle games, 7 home Temple games, and one December Army / Navy game is all the Linc grass field can tolerate and is all that Laurie will allow.

04-jawdrop 02-13-banana 03-melodramatic 05-stirthepot 04-cheers

It's true that Temple won't have PSU in the Linc every year but they will now have schools much more attractive than Bowling Green and Eastern Michigan. Another thing that will continue to have a positive effect on Temple attendance is the changes they are making on campus such as the dorms they have added. Like many other schools they are trying to get away from commuter school syndrome. Having more students on campus and getting them involved in campus life, including football, creates fans that will continue to support the program when they leave school.
02-23-2012 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.